Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dear Kay Morrison and EPA Community Involvement Staff for Region 10,
Thank you for allowing the public to provide comment. We are The Duwamish River
Accountability Group (DRAG), which is a group of community members and volunteers
who have formed following the recent EPA Duwamish River cleanup proposed changes.
Our mission is to address this, and other injustices occurring in the Duwamish Valley.
In December 2014, EPA released its Final Cleanup Plan (called a “Record of Decision”
or ROD). The ROD dictates the timeline and level of cleanup required, including where
and how much toxic sediment needs to be removed, capped, or treated with other
alternatives. The EPA recommended the dredging remedy for the areas with the highest
levels of toxic chemicals or where bottom river mud cannot be covered with a cap or
natural river deposits.
The river communities are suffering environmental impacts from the area being
industrialized and deserve the most thorough cleanup as possible.We encourage the
cleanup to still include the cleanup of 177 acres and not take short-cuts to save 1 million
dollars.The DRAG and the community urges EPA to remove sediments and have the river
cleaned up according to the 2014 Record of Decision.
We offer feedback to the EPA that the proposed changes not be taken up, further time be
granted for public comment, more transparency and community outreach is brought into
the process, the Department of Ecology is allowed time to do its impact on water
research, and that this project attain the oversight of its regional director and a Title VI
Committee to address the intersection of agencies' environmental justice efforts with their
Title VI enforcement and compliance responsibilities on the premises of:
Environmental Justice: The regions most impacted by this superfund site are in
Seattle’s historically Black and Brown neighborhoods of South Park and
Georgetown, areas that are also home to some of Seattle’s most economically
disenfranchised households. The current cleanup plan was already a compromise
to said impacted communities-- to further withdraw clean-up with this amendment
1
goes directly against the EPA’s commitment to Environmental Justice1, and
Executive Order 12898: Federal Action To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations2.
Scientific Data & Research Processes: The community and the University of
Washington has pointed to concerns related to the scientific findings upon which
the foundation for the amendment has been made, specifically related to
toxicology levels and the failure to consider a weight of evidence analysis, as
other studies came up with drastically different outcomes than the findings in the
studies used by the EPA. Further, the community is concerned the wildlife
specimens nor cumulative buildup of the presence of multiple compounds was
taken into consideration.
Impact on Water Quality: The Department of Ecology has voiced concerns that
the proposed changes do not allow for proper assessment of impact on water
qualities, and those studies should be conducted prior to cleanup amendment.
Time Frame, Representation, and Transparency: The turnaround time from when
the public received the fact sheet to the close of public comment was too short:
the fact sheet went out just days before the end of public comment. Further, this
proposed amendment has received significantly less time for public feedback as
proposed amendments for other superfund sites resulting in significantly less
participation from those most impacted. The public was not properly informed of
the independent analysis of the proposed change-- the independent analysis report
has still not been released to the public.
Regulatory & Oversight Neglect: The EPA does not yet have a new administrator
in place for this region which would be necessary to provide the critical support
regarding all the above mentioned issues at hand, potentially shielding itself from
further complications with cleanup amendment made in haste given the
consortium of complicating factors.
1
From the United States Environmental Protection Agency Statement on Environmental Justice
2
Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations
DRAG opposes the proposed amendment to clean less of the river on the issue of
environmental justice. According to the EPA:
Further, the EPA has named this region an environmental justice region in their
Environmental Justice Analysis. 4 We argue that the amended cleanup plan that will
account for 5 acres less of the contaminated Duwamish River to be cleaned is a matter of
environmental justice based on the historically BIPOC and lower income population of
this region, as well as the presence of the tribal community members.
Map Courtesy of King County See South Park + Georgetown: Lower Middle
Region
6
Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project & UW:Segregated Seattle, Seattle Segregation Maps: footnote 5
Further special considerations must be given to the care for this region’s population by factoring
in the economic makeup of this region’s population, as can be seen in graphic 1B and 1C
inclusive of South Park and Georgetown, respectively.
7
Per U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey Data for 2012-2016 as pulled by
visualization from Rich Blocks Poor Blocks
Census Tract 99 (inclusive of South Park) 2016 Median Household Income $69,423
8
Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development prosperity statistics from the 2016 American Community
Survey (ACS).
9
Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development prosperity statistics from the 2016 American
Community Survey (ACS).
10
EPA’s Environmental Justice Analysis for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup
Overall, the region being named an Environmental Justice Region with the trifecta of
community members who are largely BIPOC, low income, and/or part of the tribal
communities who will be most impacted is reason alone to abandon the amendment for
reduced cleaning. The federal law also backs this statement.
11
EPA Environmental Justice: Title VI and Environmental Justice
TITLE VI
2. Title VI is a federal law that applies to federal financial assistance recipients (i.e.,
persons or entities that receive EPA financial assistance) and not to EPA itself as
the Executive Order does.
4. Under Title VI, EPA has a responsibility to ensure that its funds are not being
used to subsidize discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. This
prohibition against discrimination under Title VI has been a statutory mandate
since 1964 and EPA has had Title VI regulations since 1973.
Further, the Executive Order named above states that all federal agency hold stated
responsibility:
To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with
the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review,
each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations
in the United States and its territories.12
This executive order is set to keep the federal agencies from taking actions that would
specifically harm BIPOC and low income populations such as populations in the Lower
Duwamish Superfund Site communities of South Park and Georgetown.
The amendment which would leave 5 acres of the Duwamish River to not be cleaned, leaving
known carcinogens in the river, further exposing these Environmental Justice populations to
12
See footnote 2
Furthermore, these special populations are in fact being left out of the process. Although
some efforts for outreach have been reported by DRCC, the actual presence of these
community members was grossly lacking at the most recent March 31st roundtable, with
about half the caucuses absent. As this is a population that is systematically marginalized,
extra efforts needed to be taken to bring them into the process, and to seek public comment
from these stakeholders-- those community members most impacted. To follow through on
the amendment without a massive campaign to attain community feedback would be a gross
neglect by the EPA and its hired community outreach teams.
We ask that the amendment be dropped. However, in lieu of this, we demand that any further
consideration of the amendment be overseen by a Title VI Committee to ensure the protection
and rights of the impacted communities which have been deemed Environmental Justice
communities.
The EPA’s proposed amendment for the Lower Duwamish River Superfund Site cleanup
is based on the supposition that a contaminant in the river, benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) no
longer poses as high a health risks as it was previously thought to, based on a 2017 EPA
update to their 1987 health risk information report for BaP.
There are, however, a number of concerns with this supposition: lack of weight of
evidence, lack of research on synergistic health effects of multiple pollution sources, and a
lack of information about increased risk factors/higher cancer slope factor in cases of
childhood exposure.
14
See footnote 10.
15
Lower Duwamish Waterway Roundtable Meeting held on March 31, 2021.
16
EPA EJ Analysis
As the EPA knows that early childhood exposure does increase the risk of cancer to some
extent, we feel it is critical to name here some of the other known risks that the EPA
would be exposing the children to by leaving a portion of the river uncleaned per the
proposal.
17
PER THE EPA Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene Executive Summary: “Susceptible Populations
and LifestagesBenzo[a]pyrene has been determined to be carcinogenic by a mutagenic mode of action in this
assessment. According to the Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to
Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005b), individuals exposed during early life to carcinogens with a mutagenic mode
of action are assumed to have an increased risk for cancer. The oral slope factor of 1 per mg/kg-day and
inhalation unit risk of 0.0006 per μg/m3, calculated from data applicable to adult exposures, do not reflect
presumed early life susceptibility to this chemical. Although some chemical-specific data exist for
benzo[a]pyrene that demonstrate increased early life susceptibility to cancer, these data were not considered
sufficient to develop separate risk estimates for childhood exposure. In the absence of adequate chemical-specific
data to evaluate differences in Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene8 age-specific susceptibility, the
Supplemental Guidance (U.S. EPA, 2005b) recommends that age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) be
applied in estimating cancer risk. The ADAFs are 10- and 3-fold adjustments that are combined with age specific
exposure estimates when estimating cancer risks from early life (<16 years of age) exposures to benzo[a]pyrene.”
Development:
○ Neurobehavioral changes
○ Decreased embryo/fetal survival
Reproduction:
○ Decreased ovarian follicles and ovary weight
○ Reduced ovulation rate and ovary weight
And leads to gastrointestinal tumors and respiratory tumors.19 Further impacts on health
can be seen in the EPA’s Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Oral Exposure
Report.20 Of special consideration should be the oral slope factor, which is reported to be
1 per mg/kg-day in adults.
Oral Slope Factor:
1per mg/kg-day
Extrapolation Method:
Time-to-tumor dose-response model with linear extrapolation from
the POD (BMDL10(HED)) associated with 10% extra cancer risk.
18
Per the EPA Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene Executive Summary
19
Per the EPA Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene Executive Summary: “Evidence for Human
CarcinogenicityUnder EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2005a), benzo[a]pyrene is
“carcinogenic to humans” based on strong and consistent evidence in animals and humans. The evidence
includes an extensive number of studies demonstrating carcinogenicity in multiple animal species exposed via all
routes of administration and increased cancer risks, particularly in the lung and skin, in humans exposed to
different PAH mixtures containing benzo[a]pyrene. Mechanistic studies provide strong supporting evidence that
links the metabolism of benzo[a]pyrene to DNA-reactive agents with key mutational events in genes that can
lead to tumor development. These events include formation of specific DNA adducts and characteristic mutations
in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes that have been observed in humans exposed to PAH mixtures. This
combination of human, animal, and mechanistic evidence provides the basis for characterizing benzo[a]pyrene as
‘carcinogenic to humans.’”
20
See footnote 11
These are the known health issues that arise in adults with the presence of BaP as claimed
by the EPA toxicology report. Repeatedly the report indicates increased risk with early
exposure, and yet, the EPA also states that we do not know the rate of increased risk due
to early childhood exposure. Thus, the EPA’s amendment is not only scientifically
unfounded, but all signs point to it also being quite unsafe. To go ahead with the
amendment would be wholly irresponsible, and could easily be considered an attack on
the people of the Environmental Justice neighborhoods of South Park and Georgetown,
and the tribal community members who live on and off of the Lower Duwamish River
and are most impacted.
This, along with the lack of weight of evidence, UW toxicologist concerns regarding the
methods by which other CPAH toxicity levels are being evaluated, and the failure to
evaluate synergistic factors of multiple toxins all provide ample grounds for the
amendment to be abandoned. The cost of $1 million saved is not worth the countless lives
endangered by keeping these higher levels of BaP in the river.
Overall, DRAG and other River community members are concerned that BaP were an
independently measured toxin and the cumulative effects and combinations of toxins
were not analyzed putting River community members, recreational users and all who
fish from the Duwamish River at risk. Further, the BaP is still known to contribute to
cancer, and this risk is likely only compounded by 40+ other pollutants (that come with
other health impacts) in and around the Duwamish River.
The UW toxicologists who completed the independent scientific assessment of the impact
of the EPA amendment had concerns about the water quality. In the informational
one-sheet posted by DRCC on March 30th, 2021, they noted that the Department of
Ecology has a higher health standard for BaP toxicity:
While the EPA is responsible for the cleanup of the sediments in
the Duwamish, the WA State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is
responsible for controlling on going sources of pollution in the
areas that drain to the river. Controlling pollution involves finding
sources of any ongoing contamination and taking action to stop or
reduce them before they reach and pollute the river. Most of the
remaining cleanup of the sediments cannot begin until sources of
cPAHs and other contaminants (PCBs, arsenic, and dioxins/frans)
are sufficiently controlled so that the river does not become
recontaminated and cleanup does not have to be repeated.
Ecology does not expect the new BaP health risk information and
the EPA’s proposed change to affect its pollution source control
efforts for the Duwamish. Ecology’s regulation of water discharges
will continue to comply with State Water Quality Standards which
have NOT changed and continue to use the more conservative BaP
toxicity value, in accordance with state law. No new rule-making
to change this standard is currently being planned.
The only remaining question is whether the EPA’s new sediment
cleanup level affects how much cPAH in the sediments dissolve
into water and changes water quality, which depends on a wide
range of factors. The next phase of Ecology's Green-Duwamish
“Pollutant Loading Assessment” involves building a model that
will simulate the potential effects of contaminants in sediment on
water quality.21
The takeaway from this analysis is threefold:
1. We do not know how the cPAH sediments may affect water quality; the
Department of Ecology still needs to develop the test to determine this.
21
See footnote 12
The March 31st community roundtable made a couple things very clear on the matter of
community involvement:
b. Outreach efforts to community for the Round Table did not include
door-to-door mailers or door knocking, but appeared to rely heavily on
internet access and social media, which is likely not the best approach
given the population who lives in this region, disproportionately
marginalized and lower income for whom internet access is not as readily
available or perhaps utilized.
2. The time frame from when DRCC put out a colloquially digestible fact sheet to
when the public comment period closes (6 days) disallowed opportunity for
public engagement and comment.
22
See footnote 9, page 63.
3. Transparency:
a. At the time of this letter’s submission, April 5th, DRCC still had not
shared the UW toxicologists independent assessment report to the public.
b. At the time of this letter’s submission, April 5th, DRCC still had not
shared the UW toxicologists independent assessment fact sheet to their
website.
Due to the above issues of lack of representation in the process, prohibitively short time
frame for community involvement post-release of relevant information-- information the
public still does not fully have access to (the independent scientist UW toxicology
report), and the lack of transparency in this process, we demand the amendment be halted
until these ethical concerns can be properly addressed, line-by-line. In lieu of this, we
demand a further extension of the deadline for public comment so that the independent
UW report information can be released, disseminated, and commented upon by those
most impacted. Aforementioned, we would again request a Title VI Committee review of
these concerns, given the Environmental Justice Population being impacted.
The Washington Post, March 31st, 2021: “And in a memo to staff last week, [EPA
Administrator Regan] said the agency is reviewing policies that impeded science and is
encouraging career employees to ‘bring any items of concern’ to the attention of
scientific integrity officials as they review Trump-era actions.”24
The EPA just attained its new EPA Administrator at the federal level. Region 10 still does
not have a regional administrator. Given the number of concerns outlined above in
considerations I-IV, the Duwamish River Accountability Group, made up of community
members and volunteers must insist that this amendment process be halted until the new
administration’s administrator for Region 10 can be appointed and onboarded for proper
oversight of this project. There are so many factors that could bring harm to the impacted
Lower Duwamish River Community, that we implore the EPA to abandon the
amendment, or pause its progress until proper oversight can be attained.
Thank you,
23
US EPA News Release from Headquarters, “Administrator Regan Directs EPA to Reset Critical Science-Focused
Federal Advisory Committees” March 31, 2021
24
Washington Post, “EPA Dismisses Dozens of Key Science Advisors Picked Under Trump” March 31, 2021